Look, I didn't mean anything by it, okay? I've already said I'm sorry.
Time Frame From Star Trek 2 - 4
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
I've never bought Edith as the love of Kirk's life, no matter what the fandom's opinion on it might be. She was just a disposable love interest like any of the others. His true love was the Enterprise.
Besides if you're going to pick a woman from Kirk's past then why not Miramanee? I mean she was his one and only wife! If anybody was going to be the love of his life then it was most likely to be her.
I can see where you're coming from but I don't think it really applies in this situations. If we'd be talking about COTEOF and how the Guardian should have been a valley lined with hundred foot tall talking statues instead of a glowing doughnut you would have a point. Technical, financial, time and other limitations are a fact in the TV and movie business.
However, when the change would consist of, at most, a few words of dialog and perhaps simple costuming I don't see where that would enter into the realm of impossible.
While it would have been very cool if Joan Collins could have played Edith one last time that would run into the limitations you spoke of. WOuld she agree to a cameo? Could the budget support it? Would her appearance actually take some of the viewers out of the movie if they didn't know who Edith was? (Hey, what's Alexis Carrington doing with Kirk?).
However, simply changing Antonia to Edith and using a long shot would not be a major undertaking in the creative process and could have made the emotional impact greater for the fans. For the public, there would have been no change from using Antonia. If you got it, great, it's a bonus. If you didn't then you're right where you were before and don't even realize that you're missing anything. No real downside as far as I can see.
The budget trials of TFF are well known. Talking about finishing that film to match Shatner's original vision would be a much more involved undertaking and I could see where your objections would be appropriate in that particular case.
I just think that having a more emotional connection to Kirk's time in the Nexus rather than another "random lover of the week" would have been a more satisfying send off to Kirk.
Miramanee might have been a great love of Kirk's life had he not been suffering from amnesia at the time. He, quite literally, was not himself. He was Kirk with all his memories and past experiences wiped away.
Edith was a great love, at least in my eyes, because he fell in love with what she was as much as who she was. Her thoughts about the future and how things would get better was the heart of Star Trek. There's also the tragic element of it. Edith died because of Kirk's actions in stopping McCoy. Perhaps seeing her in the nexus wouldn't be so much "she's the greatest love of his life" as "I didn't need to cause her death". Edith died because of something she hadn't even done yet. She was innocent of any wrongdoing and yet she had to die. You can hardly get more tragic than that.
^ The other point is that while both Miramee and Edith may have been written as 'babes of the week' for Kirk, City on the Edge of Forever and Edith have really made their mark and are remembered as particularly significant in Trek lore. I don't think Miramee has spawned as much discussion or response as Edith.
As Greg explained above, it's not just about budget, it's about what serves the story, a story that needs to be standalone and accessible to new or casual viewers. As I said, knowing what a big TOS fan Ron Moore was, I'm sure he considered the possibility of using Edith or Carol or someone, so he or his collaborators must have had a reason for deciding against that approach and going with a new character. Maybe that reason is something that hasn't been mooted in this thread yet. There are all sorts of factors that filmmakers have to contend with that we armchair quarterbacks aren't aware of.
The question is, what was the story purpose of Kirk's love interest in that sequence? Was it satisfying the fans' desire for continuity callbacks? Certainly not; that should never be the sole or primary reason for doing anything in a story. I'd say the purpose was to symbolize the choice Kirk had to make: the choice between his desire for personal fulfillment and his duty to others, between the temptations of the Nexus and the difficulties and dangers of the real world. Could Edith have symbolized that? Perhaps, since Kirk faced a similar choice there, between his love for Edith and his duty to the universe. But the difference is, in that case, there was only one choice he could have made. Saving Edith may have been what he wanted, but it was never a realistic option and he knows it. But with Antonia, he really could have chosen to stay with her, to embrace love and family and "a beach to walk on." He had a genuine choice between staying retired and going back to Starfleet, and the fact that the alternative Antonia offered was real and feasible makes it a more effective temptation within the Nexus. Because he would've been aware for nine years that he actually could have made the opposite choice (without destroying the universe as he knew it), so he would've wondered what might have been. Unlike Edith, it's a fantasy that would've actually been attainable, so that makes it more potent dramatically at that point in the story.
Also, since the point of including the love interest is to symbolize that temptation and that choice, it would not have been enough just to hear a name drop and see some Joan Collins stand-in off in the distance. Loyal fans would've gotten it all from the name alone, but most of the movie's audience would've needed it explained to them, so it would've been necessary to recap the rather complicated premise of "City on the Edge" -- which is a needless distraction in a story that's already got enough time travel going on.
There's also the fact that if Kirk were recreating events from that far in his past, he probably would've imagined himself looking the way he did at the time, and that would've been unattainable. Shatner in 1994 may have looked significantly older than Shatner in 1982, but he was a lot closer to that than he was to the Shatner of 1967. Plus setting the Kirk sequence just a couple of years before TWOK let them use the uniforms and props that would've been on hand from previous films and that movie audiences would've been familiar with. (Although there is an anachronism in the set dressing, a cast photo from TUC, which was set nearly a decade after Kirk's relationship with Antonia ended.)
Maybe simple flexibility was also a consideration. Movie scripts usually have to go through a lot of rewrites. Tying that part of the film into the specifics of a past episode would've locked them in to certain things. Making it a new relationship from an unchronicled part of Kirk's past gave them free rein to revise it however they needed to fit the demands of the latest draft of the script.
So I can see a lot of reasons why they might've decided to go with Antonia instead of Edith. The logistical and budgetary considerations are just some of the possible factors behind the decision. There are plenty of creative reasons as well as practical reasons why it might've been deemed the better choice.
I've always wondered if the mention of Idaho was supposed to be Iowa.
Well there's no doubt that Edith and City are fan favorites but that doesn't mean Kirk loved her as much as the fandom did.
I'm looking at this in terms of Kirk as a character and what I know of him and I know this one thing... No matter how much he loved Edith, if she had lived, he would not have stayed with her. Even if he had been able to bring her to the 23rd Century he would not have walked away from Starfleet and the Enterprise to be with her.
On the other hand with all knowledge of Starfleet, the Enterprise and his career taken out of the equation Kirk was able to fall in love wholeheartedly. That leaves me to believe that the only woman he truly loved was Miramanee.
However I concede his true love for her was only possible without the Enterprise. Had he remembered that ship it's possible he might still have loved her but she always would have always come in second to the big E.
That's why I maintain that Edith Keeler wasn't Kirk's true love. No woman was. The Enterprise is the great love of James T. Kirk's life. Of course Moore & Braga couldn't have Kirk choosing between humping the Enterprise or going off with Picard, so Antonia...
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Regarding Edith Keeler being used in Generations -- it could also just as well have been that they (Moore & Braga, Paramount, Rick Berman, whoever) didn't want to have to pay out any royalty to Harlan Ellison for use of the character.
Generations was also short on lead time. They were writing it while wrapping up TNG. It's possible that they simply didn't consider it that important. If they had more time, perhaps they would have. And it's not just Ron Moore that wrote the script. Bragga and Berman were also involved. That lowers the quality bar a few notches as well.
One thing to remember though is that what happened in the Nexus wasn't real. It didn't have to be based on whether Kirk could have saved Edith or not, it could be based if what he wished he could have done. Time is also mutable there, that can explain a crew photo fro TUC appearing years before it was taken. The only real place in the Nexus is inside your mind. Picard never had a wife and children at the time he entered it but look at what his mind brought him. It's more like living in a dream. When you realize that it's a dream you then realize that you can wake up and *poof* you can exit the Nexus.
From the script:
Screenplay by
Rick Berman, Ronald D. Moore, Brannon Braga
FINAL DRAFT
March 16, 1994
162 EXT. KIRK'S HOME - DAY 162
Picard finds himself standing outside a rustic, but
Architecturally striking house with spectacular views
in the Canadian Rockies. A hawk is circling overhead,
making the crying sound that Picard heard. The air is
cold, frigid -- Picard can see his breath. Picard is
just starting to adjust to this sudden change in
location when he hears the sound of wood being CHOPPED
from around the corner of the house. Picard moves to
look around the corner and sees -
James T. Kirk. He's still in his uniform and looks
exactly as he did the last time we saw him aboard the
Enterprise-B at the beginning of the film. He is
vigorously chopping wood with an axe. He's enjoying
himself, lost in the sheer pleasure of the manual
labor. He's never felt this good in his life. There's
no trace of back pain or any other ailment. Picard
recognizes the famous Captain - as would any 24
Century Starfleet officer.
PICARD
James Kirk.
Kirk pauses, looks up at the strange man before him.
His expression is wondrous, almost child-like. Like in
Picard's Christmas sequence, Kirk is immersed in the
sensual feeling of the Nexus. It's like a dream that's
over-powered him.
Later:
KIRK
No... no, it's not. It's better.
PICARD
Better?
KIRK
This is my uncle's barn in Iowa...
It appears to have been changed on the set. Shatner's got a ranch in Kentucky so it doesn't appear to be a similar situation to him changing the dogs name. Who knows where the chage came from.
Right, it could be as simple as that. It would be a lot of trouble to go to for such a minor cameo.
In support of that, I think the only TOS guest characters who showed up in any of the movies were either central to the plot (Khan) or were recurring characters created by series staff rather than freelancers (Scott, Sulu, Uhura, Chekov, Rand, Chapel) so there'd be no royalties to pay out. (I'm not counting Joachim from TWOK because the character in "Space Seed" was Joaquin. Perhaps the name change was to avoid having to pay royalties for a second character, though I'm not sure it works that way.)
And it wasn't. The woman herself wasn't the relevant thing. She was just a plot device to set up the choice Kirk had to make.
And you've been offered a panoply of reasons why they might not have. I think it's profoundly unlikely that they would've gone to the trouble.
That's needlessly petty. The issue on the table isn't quality, but continuity. How would a cameo appearance that only the loyal fans care about constitute an increase in quality? That's not quality, it's just pandering.
The problem is that you're focused on wanting this cameo and treating everything else as secondary to achieving that goal. That could not and should not have been the mindset of the people actually writing the movie. I've explained why I think that Edith would not have been the right choice dramatically or practically, and doubleohfive has offered a very good suggestion for why it might simply not have been on the table at all.
Last edited:
The novelization shows Kirk reliving the sequences over and over again. One time it's Antonio, another time Carol, another time Edith, etc.
It was apparently done in post, since you can hear it was overdubbed. Maybe the landscape looked more like Idaho than Iowa? But Iowa has mountains too...
At no point have I said that I thought that the decisions the writers made were wrong or that they didn't care. I have always approached this strictly from my point of view, which is as a fan. Your approach is different, being a writer first and a fan second. I'm not saying that's wrong in any way, shape or form. It simply is. You may have an idea that would work great for the fan in you but the writer would override it for any number of reasons. That's fine. As I said in the very first line I wrote about Edith "If it were me".
Your objection that using Edith would necessitate stopping the movie while someone filled in the audience about the plot of COTEOF is something I adressed earlier when Greg Cox raised the same objection. I responded as follows:
My comment about Bragga and Berman lowering the quality bar a bit is simply acknowledging that Ron Moor is generally regarded by the fans as being a superior writer to either of them. I didn't call them names or say that Moore had to struggle against their contributions I simply said the that the bar was lowered a bit. Petty is referring to some fans as "fanboys engaged in idle chatter" as you did earlier. I know that you apologized for that but that doesn't negate the fact that the only person who threw an insult in all of this is yourself. You've already surrendered any moral high ground you might have had.
It's just a simple discussion about a minor tweak to a movie that we've enjoyed. A chat about how we feel that it could have been even better than it was. Should we only discuss films in glowing terms, setting aside any perceived shortcoming because we're not the writers and don't know exactly why they made the decisions they did?
Orci retconned the line about only 10,000 Vulcans surviving when he was in a chat after the last movie was already released. He said something to the effect of "let's just say that Spock was only speaking of the Vulcans on the planet" when he was asked about the low number of survivors. I'll see if I can locate the exact quote. The point is that sometimes writers can have second thoughts about something that they have written, that they can realize that something doesn't make sense after the fact. Deciding that something must not be questioned because we're not the writers takes away a lot of the fun of discussion boards such as this one.
Here's the bit with Orci from a chat on Trekmovie.com:
That Nutty Fanboy: What happened to off-world Vulcans? The lines in the movie indicate 10.000 survivors overall, which seems rather low for a space-faring species – especially that very likely have off-world colonies.. or was the 10.000-line pointed towards survivors escaping Vulcan itself?
BobOrci: True. Let’s just say then that the 10,000 does not count off worlders!
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/
If slipping something into a work of fiction that is aimed at a small portion of the audience is pandering, as you say, then what exactly was the Tardis and the Time Machine doing in Watching the Clock? Why is using Edith pandering and what you did simply an easter egg? The only difference I see is that one is actually rooted in the fictional universe that the story is in.
I know what you said, and I already addressed it several posts ago when I pointed out that a mere unexplained reference wouldn't work. Dramatically, the point of giving Kirk a love interest was to symbolize the choice he had to make between personal gratification and duty. Edith could represent that, but only if their backstory were explained in a more substantive way than just "Someone I knew once."
Which, as I already said, is irrelevant because we weren't talking about any writer's quality or ability, only about Moore's familiarity with Trek continuity. I don't see why you found it necessary to introduce the issue of different writers' respective ability into a conversation that it wasn't relevant to. It comes off as gratuitous.
Nothing I said was meant to be an insult. I don't consider "fanboy" to be particularly derogatory, since I freely admit I'm a member of that category. So when I made that comment, I was making it about myself as much as anyone else. What I meant to say is that, even though I waste a great deal of my time engaged in the same kind of idle chatter, I have enough modesty to recognize that my amateur knowledge of these matters pales next to that of the people who were actually involved in making the decisions firsthand. I have a habit of wry self-deprecation, and sometimes I make a teasing comment about a group that I count myself as a member of, not realizing that others might misconstrue it as some kind of me-versus-everyone-else statement.
Where did that come from? Of course we're having a discussion about what could've been better, but I've spent many, many words explaining to you why I do not agree that the scene would have been better with Edith. In my opinion, that would've been pandering to the desire for continuity references rather than serving the needs of that particular moment in that particular story. I regret that you don't seem to have made any effort to listen to my explanation for my opinion but have instead chosen to interpret this conversation as somehow hostile.
The line was, "Nero, who has destroyed my home planet and most of its six billion inhabitants. While the essence of our culture has been saved in the elders who now reside upon the ship, I estimate no more than ten thousand have survived." That sounds to me like the "ten thousand" is referring specifically back to "its six billion inhabitants" in the previous sentence. That's the way I've interpreted those two sentences from the very first time I saw the movie. I think it's the most plausible interpretation from the sentence structure alone. I do not agree that Orci's later comment was a retcon; I see it as a clarification of the line's original intent, which was misunderstood. (For what it's worth, Alan Dean Foster's novelization rephrases the lines a bit to make it more explicit: "Of its six billion inhabitants, I estimate no more than ten thousand have survived." Foster also adds lines acknowledging that other Vulcans survive elsewhere in the Federation. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if Kurtzman & Orci had originally written it that way but Abrams revised it to be more concise and shocking. That sort of thing happens a lot in movie editing -- details and nuance getting trimmed out, only the bare bones of a concept left in.)
It's completely different. As I've already pointed out repeatedly, there was a specific story purpose to giving Kirk a romantic interest in his Nexus fantasy, so the good of the story had to be a more important consideration than the desire for a continuity nod. Sure, I could throw in passing allusions to objects that reminded the reader of the TARDIS and the George Pal time machine when they were just throwaway background details that didn't matter to the plot and that wouldn't distract readers who missed the references. But when I needed a temporal technology later in the scene that was actually important to the plot, I went with an original creation, the Ky'rha Artifacts which I'd alluded to earlier in the story, because an in-joke at that point would've been needlessly distracting, lazy, and derivative, and because it was a better idea to create something of my own that suited the actual needs of the story than to compromise the proper flow of the story by trying to graft something external into it.
There are no simple, universal rules here, except that you need to do what's right for the story. And that can be different in different circumstances. There are plenty of cases where calling back a character or plot point from a previous Star Trek episode or movie can be good for a story and serve it in a constructive way. A great many of my Trek novels and stories have depended on that principle. I just don't think that it would've been the right choice for this particular scene. For the reasons I've explained, I think Antonia worked better in this specific context than Edith would have.
I think Antonia was just random, and random never works in this context. Like introducing a character, like a red shirt, or Hawk or Valeris, just to have them get killed or be the bad guy.
Having a random woman in Kirk's paradise is a big wtf, when there are so many women in his past that fans, and casual viewers might remember. Edith being #1.
So here, your girlfriend turns and says "who's Antonia" and no one has a clue, she is no one, "never heard of her". As opposed to "who's Edith", and you say "she is from a classic episode, Joan Collins".
No big deal either way but one resonates, the other is nothing, never heard of her, and I don't care if he stays or leaves.
Having a random woman in Kirk's paradise is a big wtf, when there are so many women in his past that fans, and casual viewers might remember. Edith being #1.
So here, your girlfriend turns and says "who's Antonia" and no one has a clue, she is no one, "never heard of her". As opposed to "who's Edith", and you say "she is from a classic episode, Joan Collins".
No big deal either way but one resonates, the other is nothing, never heard of her, and I don't care if he stays or leaves.
...Making them all random in the end. Kirk's past is all about random women. Trying to make one or the other of them more significant than the rest would please the fans of that particular lady - but sticking to the pattern of ever-changing, never-returning love interests would elicit a few knowing chuckles from all of the audience. And did.
We know from the very start that there's nothing at stake with this woman, regardless of her identity. We can readily tell we won't even get to see her; it comes as no surprise that Kirk likes horses more, and starships the most.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
- Locked
